One reason Russia lost so many soldiers was the manner they were used by Stalin and his generals as gun fodder,much as Putin does today,some things just do not change.
no. they lost so many soldiers because of Stalin's purges that eliminated their most competent officers because Stalin was afraid of them. Honestly the Soviets were lucky Žukov was sent to the fair east to deal with Japan (he was far enough to not be a threat) because he was later on a key player in Soviets regrouping. And don't believe everything you read. I do not support Russia but there is a reason they advance so slowly. They advance in small groups in several places to see where the defenses are weakest and then focus on that point a bit harder. but as you can see it's always 2-3 transporters or groups of 10-15 people.
@PeoplecallmeLucifer Well actually yes. Sure, the lack of competent officers played a role, but just throwing endless poorly equipped soldiers to the meat grinder untill the enemy forces are exhausted has been the Russian way of fighting wars since the imperial times and they have never cared a bit about their own soldiers.
@@virtueofhate1778 while Yes, they were poorly equipped don't buy the Hollywood story of human wave. It's an actually well tough out tactic that Russians DID use quite effectively. The idea is to sneak as close as you can to the enemy lines and have soldiers equipped with automatic weaponry, and then charge them. The enemy is met with a wall of bullets and yes there are casualties to be expected with such tactics but Russians did not send people without guns to blindly charge forwards, just like poles didn't charge tanks with spears. That being said most Soviet casualties in the begging of the war happened due to abhorrent leadership and near collapse of the organized front. I do concede that Russians, and i mean Russian people are far more tolerant to casualties than the west
Hard to imagine that it would have made any difference, if Soviet Union would have invaded Poland before Germany. Britain's war was against Germany all along. They did what they could to undermine Germany's position, they were looking to ally with the Soviets, and also used Poles in their fight against Germany. Similarly, later on during the Winter War, Britain was promising Finland military aid, if Finland would keep on fighting the Soviet Union instead of agreeing to the peace terms. The aid would have been too little and too late. Meaning Finland would have fallen under the Soviet control, which would probably have suited Britain, which viewed Finland as a German satellite state already in the 20s. At the time Soviet Union and Germany were in pact, and Germany was stopping military aid from Italy to Finland, and Britain from France. That British aid for Finland was said to come through Sweden, which Sweden forbid, because Britain was thought to aim to take control of the Sweden's iron mines, which were providing iron for Germany. That Britain's naval blockade against Germany included also Sweden and Finland: "Sweden's only road west - World War II documentary". While the pact with Germany and the Soviet Union had ended, Britain declared war on Finland on Finland's independence day to show loyalty to the Soviet Union. Britain was also the only Western country to conduct a military campaign against Finland: "Luulot Pois! [Finnish Propaganda Song] [English and Finnish lyrics]" and "FAA Raid Petsamo". The aid the Soviet Union was getting from the Western Allies, didn't just help the Soviet Union take part in defeating Germany. When Eisenhower took part to Red Square Parade, people in those regions were still fighting against the Soviet sphere of influence.
8:50 Imma say something people might not like. But Poland was sold just as Czechoslovakia. AS I said in a previous comment. UK and France wanted a war between Germany and Soviets. Poland was in the way for that. Just like Czechoslovakia
11:50 Much of Germanys wealth was offshored in order to protect it from treaties / reparations. It soon came flooding back once Hitler got some concessions. The timing of which means that Germanys industry was the most modern and well fiananced in the years leading up to the invasion of Poland
That was Churchill's exact argument in 1938 when the then British government (from which Churchill was excluded) sacrificed Czechoslovakia at Munich. I think his quote was something like "if you keep feeding the crocodile, the result is you're the last one to be eaten."
@@history43487 Years later, it is clear that he was right. Similarly, when he said after Chamberlain's return from signing the Munich Pact with Hitler: You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.
2:55 It would mean that Germany is at war on 2 fronts with not near enough forces or equipment. Not that they ever did have enough but it would have been significantly worse They would have been crushed much sooner if they hadn't knocked France out of the war early. Remember that they used alot of the equipment they captured too. Germany would have had to leave basically all their major industry wide open to attack from the West if they launched an assault on the Soviets to the East.
While I agree with your closing statement I have to remind you that there are two options of fixing that problem. The other option being punishing a country so hard that they cannot ever rebuild. Look at what Germany looks like now when we need its help. All the economic might one could desire but their military is paper tiger and they cannot fix it fast because of endless rules and bureaucracy they implemented post ww2.
Mamme! (one of the coolest national anthems in the world). In the West we've been brainwashed by our "media" to look at every conflict through the lens of "who's the good guy, who's the bad guy." In fact, in a lot of conflicts there is no "good guy." That is certainly true in Ukraine. Putin is a KGB thug and should not be trusted. But Zelensky is a punk puppet of the globalists, sacrificing his country for bankers in London and New York. There are no "good guys" in that war. Personal opinion, of course...
Half of Europe are arming themselves up to the teeth and half are not. When the russian push eventually comes the countries that will be "sold" this time are Hungary, Slovakia and Austria to stall the enemy. The leaders of these countries are playing a very dangerous game. My biggest surprise is why the brits let their army go(again).
Yes, the treaty of versailles was way too harsh and they took too much territory. Germany was just barely defeated with the help from the united states in ww1. Germany was always much stronger (has a land power) than France and Uk combined and would have crushed them sooner or later without material and troop support.
14:50 They were arrogant. They saw themselves as untouchable. Similar thing happened in the last 5-6 years with Russian Hypersonic missiles When Putin first announced them everyone in the west laughed at his "propaganda" ... No one is laughing now. (this is not an endorsement of Putin, it's a critique of the west)
17:14 Hence the creation of the pact of coal and steel, to the current EU. Trying a different approach after a crippling intra European war. And the will to keep progressing in that project.
'Phoney war' is ok and ive never heard of 'The bore war' but i think the best term by far is the one that British troops came up with which was 'Sitz Krieg'.
The Boer War, also known as the South African War, was a colonial war fought between the British Empire and the Boer republics in South Africa from 1899 to 1902.
Connor...in regard to the Allies "punishing" Germany "too much" after WW1...you might be right, but it is far more likely that the Germans would have rejected ANY treaty the Allies made them sign...no matter if that treaty was far more lenient than Versailles. The majority of people at the time thought the treaty was either too harsh, or far far to lenient...and one thing many worried about is the fact that the victory had never been demonstrated to the German people since the militaries of France and Britain and the US and others had never marched into Germany. Turns out the worry was very valid, and the German people soon began to think that they never really had lost the war and that their military had still been fighting, and that it was the "politicians" or the communists or the Jews...or all three...who had stabbed the nation in the back for their own reasons. It was this stab in the back mythology that Bitchler and the NSDAPO used so effectively to gain the support of a sizeable minority of the German people, and to this day we still have stab in the back mythology being passed along as real historical facts.
Hind sight is a wonderful thing. It doesn't matter what people during a Peace think would be 'the right thing to do after a War'. Watching your young men die, your land taken, your cities destroyed, your families brutalised, killed, takes away perspective. The French suffered greatly during WW1, hence the French 'demands' for German surrender. The British and its, now, Commonwealth lost over a million men killed, and vast more numbers of men whose lives' changed' forever through catastrophic injuries: yet unlike the French we did not suffer an invasion of our homeland, see our treasures stolen, buildings destroyed, civilians harmed. It is my understanding that the British did try to negotiate a less severe Treaty at the end of WW1 but, in the end, understood why the French negotiators would not agree to temper their demands. In 1939 the horrors of the First World War were still vivid, communications between countries were not like they are today, so Germany was able to re-arm secretly for quite some years. Only Churchill and his Supporters were warning of what was to come. Europe was still recovering, still financially under strain and contemplation of another World War was abhorrent.
11:55 I’d recommend watching a series of 3 videos by Warfronts (formerly Warographics) called countdown to war; one each about Germany, Italy and Japan
To learn to understand is that nobody wanted ww1 and that was already devastating to Europe and 20 years isn't enough for humankind to want another war like that. It's so easy for you to comment like that while you truly don't understand what people in that era were living with. Most of all USA till this day in it's whole history hasn't faced situation what European nations faced in ww2...it's easy to comment in peaceful continent that has never dealt with multiple nation wars.
Loving these reactions please keep it up. I always watch them from start to finish every one.
One reason Russia lost so many soldiers was the manner they were used by Stalin and his generals as gun fodder,much as Putin does today,some things just do not change.
no. they lost so many soldiers because of Stalin's purges that eliminated their most competent officers because Stalin was afraid of them.
Honestly the Soviets were lucky Žukov was sent to the fair east to deal with Japan (he was far enough to not be a threat) because he was later on a key player in Soviets regrouping.
And don't believe everything you read. I do not support Russia but there is a reason they advance so slowly. They advance in small groups in several places to see where the defenses are weakest and then focus on that point a bit harder. but as you can see it's always 2-3 transporters or groups of 10-15 people.
@PeoplecallmeLucifer Well actually yes. Sure, the lack of competent officers played a role, but just throwing endless poorly equipped soldiers to the meat grinder untill the enemy forces are exhausted has been the Russian way of fighting wars since the imperial times and they have never cared a bit about their own soldiers.
@@virtueofhate1778 while Yes, they were poorly equipped don't buy the Hollywood story of human wave. It's an actually well tough out tactic that Russians DID use quite effectively. The idea is to sneak as close as you can to the enemy lines and have soldiers equipped with automatic weaponry, and then charge them. The enemy is met with a wall of bullets and yes there are casualties to be expected with such tactics but Russians did not send people without guns to blindly charge forwards, just like poles didn't charge tanks with spears.
That being said most Soviet casualties in the begging of the war happened due to abhorrent leadership and near collapse of the organized front.
I do concede that Russians, and i mean Russian people are far more tolerant to casualties than the west
Hard to imagine that it would have made any difference, if Soviet Union would have invaded Poland before Germany. Britain's war was against Germany all along. They did what they could to undermine Germany's position, they were looking to ally with the Soviets, and also used Poles in their fight against Germany. Similarly, later on during the Winter War, Britain was promising Finland military aid, if Finland would keep on fighting the Soviet Union instead of agreeing to the peace terms. The aid would have been too little and too late. Meaning Finland would have fallen under the Soviet control, which would probably have suited Britain, which viewed Finland as a German satellite state already in the 20s. At the time Soviet Union and Germany were in pact, and Germany was stopping military aid from Italy to Finland, and Britain from France. That British aid for Finland was said to come through Sweden, which Sweden forbid, because Britain was thought to aim to take control of the Sweden's iron mines, which were providing iron for Germany. That Britain's naval blockade against Germany included also Sweden and Finland: "Sweden's only road west - World War II documentary". While the pact with Germany and the Soviet Union had ended, Britain declared war on Finland on Finland's independence day to show loyalty to the Soviet Union. Britain was also the only Western country to conduct a military campaign against Finland: "Luulot Pois! [Finnish Propaganda Song] [English and Finnish lyrics]" and "FAA Raid Petsamo". The aid the Soviet Union was getting from the Western Allies, didn't just help the Soviet Union take part in defeating Germany. When Eisenhower took part to Red Square Parade, people in those regions were still fighting against the Soviet sphere of influence.
Had to put "Njet Molotov" in loop on the background to watch this
8:50 Imma say something people might not like. But Poland was sold just as Czechoslovakia. AS I said in a previous comment. UK and France wanted a war between Germany and Soviets. Poland was in the way for that. Just like Czechoslovakia
11:50 Much of Germanys wealth was offshored in order to protect it from treaties / reparations. It soon came flooding back once Hitler got some concessions.
The timing of which means that Germanys industry was the most modern and well fiananced in the years leading up to the invasion of Poland
My conclusion from this episode is different. If you don't keep your alliances because you don't want to fight, you have a war on worse terms.
That was Churchill's exact argument in 1938 when the then British government (from which Churchill was excluded) sacrificed Czechoslovakia at Munich. I think his quote was something like "if you keep feeding the crocodile, the result is you're the last one to be eaten."
@@history43487 Years later, it is clear that he was right. Similarly, when he said after Chamberlain's return from signing the Munich Pact with Hitler: You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.
2:55 It would mean that Germany is at war on 2 fronts with not near enough forces or equipment. Not that they ever did have enough but it would have been significantly worse
They would have been crushed much sooner if they hadn't knocked France out of the war early. Remember that they used alot of the equipment they captured too.
Germany would have had to leave basically all their major industry wide open to attack from the West if they launched an assault on the Soviets to the East.
While I agree with your closing statement I have to remind you that there are two options of fixing that problem. The other option being punishing a country so hard that they cannot ever rebuild. Look at what Germany looks like now when we need its help. All the economic might one could desire but their military is paper tiger and they cannot fix it fast because of endless rules and bureaucracy they implemented post ww2.
Somekind "funny" If you look most of Europa today and what is still happening Ukraine..... Greetings from Finland!
Mamme! (one of the coolest national anthems in the world). In the West we've been brainwashed by our "media" to look at every conflict through the lens of "who's the good guy, who's the bad guy." In fact, in a lot of conflicts there is no "good guy." That is certainly true in Ukraine. Putin is a KGB thug and should not be trusted. But Zelensky is a punk puppet of the globalists, sacrificing his country for bankers in London and New York. There are no "good guys" in that war. Personal opinion, of course...
Half of Europe are arming themselves up to the teeth and half are not. When the russian push eventually comes the countries that will be "sold" this time are Hungary, Slovakia and Austria to stall the enemy. The leaders of these countries are playing a very dangerous game. My biggest surprise is why the brits let their army go(again).
Yes, the treaty of versailles was way too harsh and they took too much territory. Germany was just barely defeated with the help from the united states in ww1. Germany was always much stronger (has a land power) than France and Uk combined and would have crushed them sooner or later without material and troop support.
This Spirt German Revenge.
14:50 They were arrogant. They saw themselves as untouchable. Similar thing happened in the last 5-6 years with Russian Hypersonic missiles
When Putin first announced them everyone in the west laughed at his "propaganda" ... No one is laughing now.
(this is not an endorsement of Putin, it's a critique of the west)
17:14 Hence the creation of the pact of coal and steel, to the current EU. Trying a different approach after a crippling intra European war. And the will to keep progressing in that project.
'Phoney war' is ok and ive never heard of 'The bore war' but i think the best term by far is the one that British troops came up with which was 'Sitz Krieg'.
The Boer War, also known as the South African War, was a colonial war fought between the British Empire and the Boer republics in South Africa from 1899 to 1902.
Connor...in regard to the Allies "punishing" Germany "too much" after WW1...you might be right, but it is far more likely that the Germans would have rejected ANY treaty the Allies made them sign...no matter if that treaty was far more lenient than Versailles.
The majority of people at the time thought the treaty was either too harsh, or far far to lenient...and one thing many worried about is the fact that the victory had never been demonstrated to the German people since the militaries of France and Britain and the US and others had never marched into Germany. Turns out the worry was very valid, and the German people soon began to think that they never really had lost the war and that their military had still been fighting, and that it was the "politicians" or the communists or the Jews...or all three...who had stabbed the nation in the back for their own reasons. It was this stab in the back mythology that Bitchler and the NSDAPO used so effectively to gain the support of a sizeable minority of the German people, and to this day we still have stab in the back mythology being passed along as real historical facts.
Hind sight is a wonderful thing. It doesn't matter what people during a Peace think would be 'the right thing to do after a War'. Watching your young men die, your land taken, your cities destroyed, your families brutalised, killed, takes away perspective. The French suffered greatly during WW1, hence the French 'demands' for German surrender. The British and its, now, Commonwealth lost over a million men killed, and vast more numbers of men whose lives' changed' forever through catastrophic injuries: yet unlike the French we did not suffer an invasion of our homeland, see our treasures stolen, buildings destroyed, civilians harmed. It is my understanding that the British did try to negotiate a less severe Treaty at the end of WW1 but, in the end, understood why the French negotiators would not agree to temper their demands. In 1939 the horrors of the First World War were still vivid, communications between countries were not like they are today, so Germany was able to re-arm secretly for quite some years. Only Churchill and his Supporters were warning of what was to come. Europe was still recovering, still financially under strain and contemplation of another World War was abhorrent.
11:55 I’d recommend watching a series of 3 videos by Warfronts (formerly Warographics) called countdown to war; one each about Germany, Italy and Japan
To learn to understand is that nobody wanted ww1 and that was already devastating to Europe and 20 years isn't enough for humankind to want another war like that. It's so easy for you to comment like that while you truly don't understand what people in that era were living with. Most of all USA till this day in it's whole history hasn't faced situation what European nations faced in ww2...it's easy to comment in peaceful continent that has never dealt with multiple nation wars.